21
   

How many Trump supporters do we have on a2k?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 09:15 pm
@McGentrix,
Is English your first language? Curious.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 09:22 pm
@McGentrix,

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub


1. ALIENS, CITIZENS, AND
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
[Vol. 25:367
The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between
the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discriminatorily
denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective
office are expressly restricted to citizens.12 All other rights, however,
are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees
extend to all "persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials,
including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance
of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply
to "the accused." And both the First Amendment's protections
of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's
protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people."
The fact that the Framers chose to limit to citizens only the
rights to vote and to run for federal office is one indication that
they did not intend other constitutional rights to be so limited.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither
the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges
any distinction between citizens and resident aliens."13 For more
than a century, the Court has recognized that the Equal Protection
Clause is "universal in [its] application, to all persons within
the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to differences of ...
nationality."14 The Court has repeatedly stated that "the Due
Process Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United States,
including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful,
temporary, or permanent."15 When noncitizens, no matter what
their status, are tried for crimes, they are entitled to all of the
12. U.S. CONST. art. I, §§ 2, 3; U.S. CON ST. art. II, § 1; U.S. CONST. amend. 15.
The Constitution's limitation to citizens of the right against discriminatory denial of
the vote does not mean that noncitizens cannot vote. If a state or locality chooses to
enfranchise its noncitizen residents, it may do so. Indeed, until the early twentieth
century, noncitizens routinely enjoyed the right to vote as a matter of state and local
law. By contrast, the Constitution expressly restricts to citizens the right to hold
federal elective office.
13. Chew, supra note 5, at 596 n.5 (1953) (construing immigration regulation permitting
exclusion of aliens based on secret evidence not to apply to a returning permanent
resident alien because of the substantial constitutional concerns that such an
application would present).
14. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886).
15. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 6
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 09:43 pm
@BillRM,
Again, applies to people in the US or one of it's territories. I bet that Walter would be surprised to find out that his right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is guaranteed by the US constitution. Does that mean if he is arrested in Hamburg, the US govt will have his back?

Maybe you guys should go back and read what I actually wrote instead of using whatever broken divining rod you are using to interpret something I didn't write?

McGentrix wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Donald Trump wants to ban all Muslims from traveling to the US. Seems he doesn't understand the US Constitution that guarantees the "Freedom of Religion" Does he qualify to be our president? If so, why?


Only for American citizens. The U.S. Constitution does not apply to foreign citizens or visa seekers. He may know this.


I did say "does not apply to foreign citizens" in response to "Muslims from traveling to the US." Obviously not already in the US. I am pretty sure Muslims in the US would not be traveling to the US. Right? By adding "or visa seekers" should imply that I was speaking to CI's post about traveling to the US. The US constitution does not promise everyone the ability to travel to the US.

Just a note, I am not pretending to be a constitutional scholar. If someone shows me in the US Constitution where our borders are meaningless and any one can come to the US anytime they feel from anywhere, I will gladly take that under advisement.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  5  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 03:38 am
Ah, hyperbole . . . i haven't seen anyone here say that the borders of the United States are meaningless. People can, of course, just walk across the borders of Canada or Mexico. In other cases, people can arrive by air or by sea. The opportunity to exclude them while they are on foreign shores is limited. Even if they arrive here "illegally," the opportunity to exclude them or to throw them out is limited, and precisely because they have rights and constitutional protections. If someone gets here, and INS wants to deport them, saying that they are undesirable because of their religious confession is going to be field day for the lawyers. The Donald is a f*cking idiot--but we already knew that, didn't we.
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 07:12 am
@Setanta,
I guess that's what passes for apologies in Canada. I accept it.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 07:18 am
According to one source, you can deny anyone entry without having to have a reason. However, when you think how this country was formed, people coming here from other countries to flee from religious persecution, it is against our values to deny persons entry into the US based on the person's religion. The whole subject is irrelevant when it came to the Bernardino shooting because the man was a citizen and his wife came over on a fiancée visa.

Quote:
Is it constitutional to prevent all Muslims from entering the US?

It certainly sounds unconstitutional — the Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion for all Americans. But when it comes to approving visas to come to the US, the government has a lot of leeway: It doesn't have to tell someone why his or her visa (or application to immigrate permanently) was denied. So in practice, the US could probably quietly deny Muslims' visa requests for a while. But announcing it in advance would probably be unwise, and the policy might get challenged in court.

Furthermore, tourists visiting from countries participating in the visa waiver program, which allows short visits from certain countries without a visa at all, don't have to apply for visas — so the government wouldn't have the opportunity to quietly bar them from entering. (Ironically, if Congress overhauls the visa waiver program — something both it and the White House think needs to happen in the wake of the Paris attacks last month — this would get easier.)


source

The constitution does say we can make no laws because of religion. So if we want to make a new law concerning Muslims, it is pretty plain we can't unless we want to change the constitution.

Quote:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


source
Miller
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 07:35 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

He's a loud mouth bigoted nut.


So what! He's got big-time dough and at least he speaks his mind . You're just jealous!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 07:36 am
@revelette2,
Leaving the constitutional question aside: how would it be determined of what religion I am? Just asking? Deeper interrogation about the knowledge of a religion? Certified CV of church/temple etc visits?
Miller
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 08:31 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Leaving the constitutional question aside: how would it be determined of what religion I am? Just asking? Deeper interrogation about the knowledge of a religion? Certified CV of church/temple etc visits?



Relative to the religion of Judaism:

"Who is a Jew?" (Hebrew: מיהו יהודי‎ pronounced [ˈmihu jehuˈdi]) is a basic question about Jewish identity and considerations of Jewish self-identification. The question is based in ideas about Jewish personhood which have cultural, religious, political, genealogical, and personal dimensions. The definition of who is a Jew varies according to whether it is being considered by Jews based on normative religious statutes or self-identification, or by non-Jews for other reasons. Because Jewish identity can include characteristics of an ethnicity,[1] a religion,[2] or conversion, the definition depends on many aspects that must be considered.[3]

According to the simplest definition used by Jews for self-identification, a person is a Jew by birth, or becomes one through religious conversion. However, there are differences of opinion among the various branches of Judaism in the application of this definition, including:
The effect of mixed parents: i.e. whether a person of mixed Jewish and non-Jewish parents should be considered Jewish.
Conversion: i.e. what processes of conversion should be considered valid.
Historical loss of Jewish identity: i.e. whether a person's or group's actions (such as conversion to a different religion) or circumstances in his or her community's life (such as being unaware of Jewish parents) should affect his or her status as Jewish or non-Jewish.
Diaspora identity: identity of Jews among themselves, and by non-Jews throughout the Jewish diaspora.
Claim to Israeli citizenship: the examination of the previous issues in the context of the Basic Laws of Israel.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 08:35 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.


It is possible you can not see the difference between a citizen one who is NOT !!

Not suggesting Trump is rational, just shocked you can not understand that every one on the planet is not protected by our constitution.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 08:36 am
@revelette2,
Quote:
According to one source, you can deny anyone entry without having to have a reason


Trump had been including US citizens and somehow I question if the courts will allowed US citizens from not being able to return due to their religion.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 08:40 am
@woiyo,
Quote:
hat every one on the planet is not protected by our constitution.


They are when they are on US Territory.

0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 08:51 am
@Miller,
I'm certain the a Jew from Israel might be easily recognised - but both Muslims and Jews in Iran share names e.g. Farangis, Azar, Shahram, Manuchehr. And some Jews are named Shokrollah, Enayatollah, Abdollah, and Ruhollah. And so on
Miller
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 09:03 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I've known Jewish men, whose names are Irish, because their fathers/grandfathers upon arrival in the US changed their Jewish names to non-Jewish-sounding names, so as to avoid discrimination in the work place and to enhance their abilites ( and those of their children) to gain admission to very slective colleges( and thus to bypass the quota system often employed by colleges).
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  4  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 10:00 am
@woiyo,
It isn't a matter of who is covered and who is not. We would have to make a law which specially says Muslims can't come into the US and according to the constitution you can't make laws based on religion. Also, Walter is right, how would you would know who is a Muslim and who is not? Based on their skin tone or where they come from or if their names sound Muslim? Trump's statement was just stupid and it is pretty typical any idiotic statement he says gets defended.

Personally I am beginning to think some people might be right, he was paid by someone to run and he is now laughing all the way to the bank while making all these outlandish statements. It is almost like he is making satire out republicans by being even more extreme in his statements than even the most extreme tea party republican.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 10:24 am
I know there is a difference, but just how different is what Trump said and this?

House Votes to Restrict Travel by Foreigners Who Visited Iraq, Syria

Quote:
WASHINGTON—The House overwhelmingly approved legislation Tuesday to limit certain travel privileges granted to citizens of 38 friendly foreign countries, the first step in what lawmakers expect will be a larger response to an evolving terrorist threat... more at link


I realize this is not " all muslims" but don't you think Trump was probably being a tad hyperbolic when he said that? I would equate this to what Trump was talking about yet where is the uproar and gnashing of teeth?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 10:44 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
I know there is a difference, but just how different is what Trump said and this?


Quote:
New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.
Source: TRUMP

versus
Your quote wrote:
The House overwhelmingly approved legislation Tuesday to limit certain travel privileges granted to citizens of 38 friendly foreign countries,


I did think that you noticed the difference between changing some parts of the visa-waiver program and a total and complete shutdown of entering. As well as the difference of citizens of 38 countries and 1,3 billion persons spread all over the world. But obviously you didn't.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 10:51 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Yes Walter i realized that. But what is the overall reach and goal of the legislation? What do all 38 countries have in common? If they are friendly nations why would we need to limit certain travel privileges? Who's travel privileges will be curtailed?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 11:15 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Yes Walter i realized that. But what is the overall reach and goal of the legislation? What do all 38 countries have in common? If they are friendly nations why would we need to limit certain travel privileges? Who's travel privileges will be curtailed?
Visa Waiver Program
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  4  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 11:30 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Because Obama has been wrong about ISIS and is to blame for their strength, and is allowing them entrance into our country.


Thats so sad. But you do have an opportunity to explain Gulf I, as well as Dick Cheney's eagerness to topple Saddam and all the lies leading up to the war with Iraq. It's complicated and they are young, but they deserve to hear at least one adult outline all the actions that have brought us to this point.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/28/2020 at 05:37:41